East Haddam Agriculture Commission's Recommendations Concerning the Center for Community Agriculture Proposal

This letter was read at the town meeting held Sept 21, 2015 at the Nathan Hale-Ray High School Auditorium. It is now a matter of public record.

Mark Walter, First Selectman Town of East Haddam Board of Selectmen
Town Office Building 7 Main Street, P.O. Box K

East Haddam, CT 06423

Re: Center for Community Agriculture
Dear Mr. Walter:

On August 27, 2015, the members of the Agriculture Commission endorsed a consensus letter that was sent to you regarding the Center for Community Agriculture. Because of the turmoil that has surrounded this project, the Agriculture Commission has again examined the entire project and listened to thoughts provided by citizens in attendance at our Commission meeting last night (September 14, 2015). We would like to make additional recommendations to the Board of Selectmen.

Despite the political firestorm brewing on both sides of this issue, the members of the Commission are committed to remaining politically neutral and these recommendations are being submitted with a focus strictly on our charge. First and foremost, it must be stated that no one on this Commission endorses the rejection of this proposal and the return of any STEAP grant monies already expended, but rather the members would like to see the property developed successfully in an organized and priority-driven manner. The key to this success will be open discourse and accurate, publicly available information. We believe that the most pressing matter that needs to be addressed immediately is all of the negative, frequently inaccurate information that is being posted on-line and distributed throughout town. It is critical that each and every allegation be examined in a public document on the Townʼs website; where there is validity, that must be confirmed, and where the information is false that must be corrected. Accurate, up-to-date information must appear in that same document on the website.

Equally important, it has been reported that the town will incur considerable penalties if the STEAP grant is returned. The Town MUST be very clear as to exactly when these penalties would be incurred and how much they would be. (According to one individual in the audience of the September 14th Ag Commission meeting, employees in the State Office of Policy Management as well as the Office of Economic & Community Development allegedly told her that the Town would NOT incur any penalties if the grant were returned at the present time.) The exact amounts of any and all fines, fees and reimbursements need to be made public. Lastly, it is critical that we know how much time we have to use the grant in its entirety, therefore we would suggest a proposed timeline for project completion.

That being said, we would like to reiterate our original recommendations, and make some additional suggestions. Development of the Property should begin with the immediate priorities being:

A) Soil Amendment:

The soil at the Property has been shown to be in desperate need of replenishment, and that process needs to be initiated immediately so as to improve the yield of leased plots and increase the “marketability” of the land as an income entity to support the development and create, at the very worst, a cost-neutral entity for the town.
Start soil amendment process asap. As it will take years to re-establish nutrients, we need to start now. With the growing season coming to a close, autumn is the perfect time to start such endeavors as : 1) there will be no tenants to disturb; 2) amendments will have the winter to be absorbed by the soil; 3) leaves will be falling and people will want to dispose of them. Leaf mulch is one of the best natural fertilizers available.

B) Compost/Mulch:

The development of composting on the property will go not only help to improve the soil, it will furthers the projectʼs goals of sustainability, education and advancement of organic gardening practices.
A compost heap is easy to develop, and could actually make some money for the town; either charge a modest fee to drop off materials (i.e. $1.00 per bag of leaves) and allow those that have paid to eventually pick up what they need for free in the future, or reverse the order. Those with livestock could also bring in their manure to contribute to the composting. The development of composting on the property will go a long way to help with the development.

C) Property Maintenance:

The Property must be properly maintained by the Town, and this would include REGULAR mowing (at least once a week), perimeter trimming, and general site maintenance as necessary. This also needs to include proper maintenance of the access road to the property itself which is currently unmarked and in poor condition. A designated parking area for garden tenants need to be established and clearly labeled as well.

D) Irrigation:

Drill the well. There was considerable discussion surrounding the immediate need for a well and the placement of underground storage tanks. Above ground storage containers that could be filled by the fire department and that would not incur the cost of excavation need to be explored as an option. There is no point in addressing the water storage issues now, as soon as they were installed, we would have to immediately address freezing issues. However, we should drill the well now so that there will be immediate water access when the 2016 season starts. This will greatly increase occupancy next year.

E) Tool Shed:

Construction of a tool/maintenance shed. As this is not funded by the STEAP grant, work
should have started already. It seems like we should be able to get this done before the winter. Again, the more amenities we have in place before next March, the greater the rate of occupancy will be.

F) Signage:

The signage and road naming should be designed and installed as originally discussed
at one of the first meetings of this reconstituted Commission.

G) Bathroom Facilities:

Instead of installing a septic system and leeching field, install a composting toilet.
Composting toilets are much more in line with the goals of this project to embrace and act as a model of sustainability and environmental responsibility. Furthermore, leeching fields have no place near a community garden.

H) Greenhouses/Hoophouses:

The materials, longevity, maintenance and occupancy of the currently proposed hoop houses and greenhouse are of concern, and the Commission urges the town to investigate other options. Placement and construction of these structures should be on hold until a more thorough investigation of all associated costs and alternatives can be completed and all possible alternatives considered.

I) Pavilion:

The design of the pavilion should be reviewed and alternatives considered. There is
concern that as currently proposed, future additions to the present structure would be difficult. Also, the current proposed structure does not really accomplish the projectʼs goal of creating a “hub” for the community as it has limited seating and can only be used in good weather.

J) Electricity:

Plans for electrical service need to re-evaluated with an focus on sustainability.
Alternative options, such as solar, need to be FULLY and thoroughly investigated. Having said that, we realize that a permanent electrical supply will be needed to run the well. We suggest that power be brought in now to run the well. As funds outside the STEAP grant have already given to the town specifically to build a tool shed, this shed can also house the permanent power box. Once the electric box is in, and the well has been dug, a detailed investigation into alternative power options should be done without haste.

Respectfully submitted,

Members of the Agriculture Commission:
Ron Gross (Chairman), Marianne Halpin, Peter Dean, Carleen Quinn, Kevin Staehly, Bonnie Buongiorne, Tanya Bourgoin, Mark Henderson